Thanks for pointing this out, Daniel.

I've now fixed the error gap here.

Regards,
Mac

Hi. I've changed Vallentin Road to oneway=no.

The road has new a 'no entry' restriction at its west end (buses + cycles are exempted). This is already set as a pair of turn restrictions.

General motorists can still enter at the east end of the road, travel westwards almost to the end of the road and then do a u-turn and exit the same way they entered.

Hi. I've corrected the turn restriction osm.org/relation/13933331 into 2 separate 'no left' + 'no straight ahead' turn restrictions (except cycles).

I can see that you've now resolved this issue.

Thanks. These are all now removed.

Hi,

"crossing=toucan" is not an approved tag for a crossing with traffic signals. See osm.wiki/Key:crossing?uselang=en-GB#Approved_tags

"toucan" is only valid as a value for "crossing_ref". See osm.wiki/Key:crossing_ref

Since osm.org/changeset/115290764 the extent of the relation for "EV1 in Spain" also included the Ireland section of the EV1 route.

This was due to a circular reference within the osm.org/relation/2763798 parent relation, with this relation wrongly being included as a submember of one of its child subrelation (Spain's EV1 superrelation).

There's definitely been a realignment of osm.org/relation/11815403.

The cycleway is fully constructed, but is just not officially accessible yet.

Hi. I think it's a bit premature to consider this barriered cycleway as being officially open. See https://853.london/2021/10/01/deptford-creek-roads-4-2m-cycleway-4-will-not-open-until-at-least-march-council-admits/

If you disregard the barriers, when cycling westbound the 'route' comes to a particularly unsafe cul de sac, with no cycling crossing.

Eastbound is a lot less unsafe, but the (functional) cycle lights for crossing osm.org/node/6552004400 are kept covered up. Also, I doubt anyone is daring to use (or even move the barriers at) osm.org/way/697668255 - I think the planned cycle lights might not even work here.

In terms of previously existing cycle routes, the only two-way route that could really be made safely would be the NCN21-NCN4 link to the east of osm.org/node/6552004401. The unstarted work that is holding up the opening of the cycleway is along this section though.

Regards,
Mac

Hi. This now now been moved back.

Yep. I'd sent you a private message mentioning this. You had also mapped the 2 links here as a single (i.e. 'continuous') route which isn't the case.

Agree. I've changed this to a cycleway now. I didn't notice any dropped kerb on the QEOP side to merit tagging as a cycleway at that end though.

There is some work going on at osm.org/way/850658623 which is currently closed. Possibly the steps there are being converted to a ramp, but I didn't survey the work.

Ah, I see. Interestingly https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/en/request/breakdown_of_100km_of_cycle_lane does list 0.5 km of Loughborough Road as 'New or upgraded cycle routes delivered or are under Route length construction'.

Also, https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s117177/Appendix%201%20Covid-19%20Transport%20Strategy%20Programme.pdf#page=8 projected just 2 weeks of work in 2020 for whatever was planned here.

I'll re-tag this with state=proposed.

Here's a map of the London Cycle Network as it was in 2004: https://web.archive.org/web/20040529124642/http://www.londoncyclenetwork.org.uk/uploaded_files/library/documents/LCN_MAP_2004.pdf

The relation (13400058) for this LCN route can be viewed at https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=13400058 and is tagged with "cycle_network=GB:London Cycle Network".

Signage along the route is a mixture of council signage (which includes segment/links that are not part of the National Cycle Network) and Sustrans' NCN stickers. Along London's NCN4, it is a local network route, a national network route and an international (EV2) network route... but signage-wise all three are represented by the same 'ref=4'. As far as I'm aware, there is no actual signage for EV2 in the UK.

Within London, Route 4 of the National Cycle Network is also Route 4 of the London Cycle Network. A separate subrelation was needed to represent the section that is part of the LCN, and this includes a segment in Putney that has been dropped from the NCN.

Ah, I see. I've reverted my changes to the roundabout now, including the central grass circle.

Have a look at osm.org/way/962036167. I've retagged this central grass island as 'was:landuse=grass' cos it already was overlapping some of the roadway prior to my changeset + so it will need redrawing too. Maybe you'd be able to have a go at this.

I'd interpret the wiki as referring to whether to map physically separate cycleways (e.g. osm.org/way/156111836 on this stretch of road) as a simple 'highway=* + cycleway=track' or to map as a separate 'highway=cycleway'. I'd always aim to map these as separate ways.

From a (non-routing) mapping perspective, it would still misrepresent the infrastructure to map this as a separate way.

This isn't a crossing, it's a signalised junction. Vallance Rd <-> New Rd is a single carriageway with no protected cycleway. Crossings usually are perpendicular to the flow of traffic.

This junction just has advisory with-flow lanes for cyclists, with broken white lines meaning that motorists, including ambulances to the adjacent hospital, can still drive into these lanes. It's not much different to all other cycle lanes.

At the junction there's just an early release of 2-3 seconds for cyclists. Although there are markings for a 'turn right in 2 phases' here... if willing to chance it when the lights change, you can veer out of the painted 'advisory' lane at any point and turn right (if e.g. no cyclists are coming from the opposite direction.) I've done this several times on early Saturday mornings.

Even if sticking to the painted lane to go straight across, it's very obvious you're still on an unprotected roadway (especially as Tower Hamlets doesn't have the best standard of driving!)

If there was e.g. an island then it would be mapped as a separate way, such as at https://goo.gl/maps/HpGo7p1pf4UyGkuq8.

The issue here is that (apart from the physically separated bit at the north of the street) the cycle track is connected to the road along the length of the road. Between each pair of wands there are links between the cycle track + the road. No house on the west side of the road is inaccessible from the cycle track.

As you had changed it, to cycle from Stamford Hill station to any of the houses here (all are on the west side), you would have to cycle the full length of West Bank and do a u-turn and go back north via the roadway.

This track (basically a protected cycle lane) is too inherently part of the road to be mapped as a separated way.